Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
Lower EU immigration doesn't automatically mean an increase in non-EU immigration. It's a nonsense argument.
Have you not seen the latest immigration figures from the Office of National Statistics. I think you are in denial or being obtuse about it. I am not going to get the figures for you but if you look at the ONS data you will see European Immigration has fallen, only to be offset by a rise in Non-European Immigration. Whether you like it or not, skill shortages in the UK economy are still inherently visible and the Immigration is only meeting a need.
It's possible to run a country without adding 300k people every year. It's not a law of nature, it's current government policy which could be changed.
Unfortunately, the demographic change in this country by which the proportion of those that don't work compared to those who do is going the wrong way. A country could try to meet this challenge by not having immigration but it would distort the economy into favouring less productive employment and more than likely much higher taxes, which might make the economy less competitive. I think it has to be remembered that Globalisation, the internet and speed of travel have changed the world and our country. You cannot turn the clock back and to enhance peoples economic welfare and protect it in the long run Immigration will continue. It seems to be an establishment agreement not to let on to the public why immigration is required to balance the economy as the population ages.
My father, who has since died, voted Leave. He knew little of current affairs but was (before the onset of his dementia) very sharp, having successfully run his own business for many years. He had zero knowledge of what the EU did beyond what he read in the Daily Mail.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
He was also clearly an immensely tolerant, wise and forgiving father, in a way that perhaps you have yet to understand or appreciate.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.
You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?
I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.
I would prefer to be ruled by politicians that a) I can vote out and b) who act in my favour. My complaint is that I can't and they don't, and that "Leave" is not helping this.
Leave ensures (a)
(A) facilitates the establishment of (b) provided that enough of your fellow citizens agree with you
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
But what if it doesn't?
What does that look like? And if it does look like the UK somehow becoming a cross between Gin lane, Cherobyl, and downtown Somalia overnight, who is really going to be blamed, the people that wanted to leave the EU, or the people who've been running the country so disastrously that leaving a set of customs arrangements (with 3 years' notice) makes that happen?
Why the f does it matter who “gets the blame” in those circumstances?
'Gets the blame' - wrong choice of words. Should have said 'what is the implication?'. Because clearly the implication is not 'we shouldn't have left, we must rejoin', but 'how the hell did we get into this parlous state, let's make sure we never take our eye so badly off the ball again'. It is an argument for more public accountability, and civic responsibility, not for putting our brains back on holiday and running back to what will have been clearly shown to be illusory 'safety'.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
I hope in that same interview she was asked to apologise for the continuing risk of No Deal Brexit? Without her intervention, May's Deal would be May's Agreement, signed, sealed, delivered.
Part of the reason people wanted Brexit was so that the British parliament could take back control. If it wasn't Gina Miller it would have been someone else. Why not blame the judges?
We need to bulk buy some extra water cleaner, and whatever the NHS thinks it needs to continue the rather below par job it does of putting people back on the road to recovery. Beyond that, it's just people and countries acting as the economic units they are. It is foolish for remainers to overplay the 'no deal' hand, but they have not shown an awful lot of common sense up till now, so what should we expect?
This is a pretty good blog from the perspective of a libertarian Brexiteer which explains why you're wrong. Which bit of it do you disagree with?
There was nothing inevitable about our current predicament and you wouldn't start from here, but now that we're here it would be irresponsible to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The European Commission and the British establishment have won. The Brexiteers have been outmaneuvered. We have lost and it is not worth wrecking the economy and opening the door to socialism to make a point. The only realistic choice now is between remaining in the EU and accepting May's deal. No deal is a no go.
What is there to agree with or disagree with? In his worst case scenario, we don't run out of food, or anything like it. Beyond that he's speaking of longer term economic consequences that can be dealt with on a longer term basis.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
It shouldn't be a 3-way referendum. That is asking for trouble, confusion, and complaints of non-legitimacy. But the second of these is preferable to the first. In the first, consider that I am pro-Remain but I fear that if it gets to Q2 Leave will win. How should I vote on Q1?
Best is to have just a single question: Leave or Remain. If WTO is the best kind of Leave that Parliament can come up with, fine. I don't want to wipe MPs' bottoms for them. Do it once and they'll want it all the time.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
It shouldn't be a 3-way referendum. That is asking for trouble, confusion, and complaints of non-legitimacy. But the second of these is preferable to the first. In the first, consider that I am pro-Remain but I fear that if it gets to Q2 Leave will win. How should I vote on Q1?
Best is to have just a single question: Leave or Remain. If WTO is the best kind of Leave that Parliament can come up with, fine. I don't want to wipe MPs' bottoms for them. Do it once and they'll want it all the time.
Let's face it - you just want a re-run of the original referendum you lost. So many people tying themsleves in knots to justify their Wah-Wah-Wah We MUST have a re-run position......
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Doesn't Brenda's prerogative now have a formal role in our unwritten constitution?
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
Our net membership fee without rebate would be entirely unjustifiable. Out of whack for any other EU country.
With tongue firmly in cheek: one could say that if we Remain after all, after The Bus and its claims, we can be judged as willing to pay the gross membership fee without rebate.
Maybe the leavers are cleverer than we think. They know they can't handle this mess so let's do such a bad job that the only option is to remain but under such terrible terms that we become REALLY hostile to the EU and then leave becomes inevitable in a second referendum (ATIC).
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Why are we still talking about May's deal like it will pass? It clearly wont.
Until such time as Parliament formally rejects it it is a theoretical possibility. It will remain forever theoretical, but we're all just twiddling our thumbs until they do what they say they will do.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
On the day after the referendum one of the vox pops from a pub somewhere showed an old man with tears in his eyes saying, "I've got my country back!" It was very poignant but I remember feeling such anger towards the people who made him feel that he'd lost his country in the first place.
Patronising much?
Typical of William I am afraid. And hypocritical given his stated view on here many times that he doesn't believe in the Nation State.
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
Indeed. Has anyone actually looked up what the biggest defeat every suffered by a government was? This will have to be close if not a record, since in most cases governments will avoid the vote if they will lose massively.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
Our net membership fee without rebate would be entirely unjustifiable. Out of whack for any other EU country.
With tongue firmly in cheek: one could say that if we Remain after all, after The Bus and its claims, we can be judged as willing to pay the gross membership fee without rebate.
Maybe the leavers are cleverer than we think. They know they can't handle this mess so let's do such a bad job that the only option is to remain but under such terrible terms that we become REALLY hostile to the EU and then leave becomes inevitable in a second referendum (ATIC).
That sounds like the sort of epic overthink that Arthur Balfour would come up with.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
On the day after the referendum one of the vox pops from a pub somewhere showed an old man with tears in his eyes saying, "I've got my country back!" It was very poignant but I remember feeling such anger towards the people who made him feel that he'd lost his country in the first place.
Patronising much?
Typical of William I am afraid. And hypocritical given his stated view on here many times that he doesn't believe in the Nation State.
You've inferred that from what I've said but that's a caricature of my views.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
It shouldn't be a 3-way referendum. That is asking for trouble, confusion, and complaints of non-legitimacy. But the second of these is preferable to the first. In the first, consider that I am pro-Remain but I fear that if it gets to Q2 Leave will win. How should I vote on Q1?
Best is to have just a single question: Leave or Remain. If WTO is the best kind of Leave that Parliament can come up with, fine. I don't want to wipe MPs' bottoms for them. Do it once and they'll want it all the time.
Let's face it - you just want a re-run of the original referendum you lost. So many people tying themsleves in knots to justify their Wah-Wah-Wah We MUST have a re-run position......
It's a charade. Especially should "the best kind of leave parliament can come up with" be no deal because Remainers in parliament deliberately vote down any deal so they can blackmail us into Remaining and unlimited immigration.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
Well that is the key thing that needs to be done. Remainers need to join their local Conservative Associations and get the megaphobes out. There's a similar process needs to go on in Labour, though there are fewer targets there. In fact one big one might be enough.
Then what does that look like? And if it does look like the UK somehow becoming a cross between Gin lane, Cherobyl, and downtown Somalia overnight, who is really going to be blamed, the people that wanted to leave the EU, or the people who've been running the country so disastrously that leaving a set of customs arrangements (with 3 years' notice) makes that happen?
The Single Market ain't just "a set of customs arrangement". Nowhere near. It's leaving the Single Market (enhanced, it must be said, by leaving the Customs Union, but the primary effect is the Single Market) that causes the issues. Being in a Single Market with the rest of the EU+EFTA has provided huge benefits in terms of facilitating pretty much everything to do with trade, both business-to-consumer, but business-to-business (and even internally within businesses). It means we don't stop things for inspections as they cross borders. We don't have to negotiate a thicket of interleaving and often mutually inconsistent standards and authorisations. We don't have to worry about who underwrote what and whether we have a mutual recognition treaty with them.
These things form the boundary of national markets. The Single Market is (I believe uniquely) an attempt to extend everyone's national markets to continental reach.
Just as things become more practical, easy to specialise, and scale-economies achieved when expanding a market from a village to a town, from a town to a county, and from a county to a country, the effect is enhanced yet further when expanding from a country to a continent. Making everyone involved more prosperous.
We explicitly intended to move in at least something like this direction when joining the Common Market in the Seventies, enhanced further by the changes of the Eighties. And we, understandably, became more and more reliant on it.
If there is "guilt", we're all "guilty". We all looked to get more value for our money, and more prosperity for any given wealth. Companies that took advantage of the Single Market were rewarded with our custom; companies that didn't, lost out.
Now we have intertwined economic activities across the board - because that's what's provided more for less, again and again.
Calling it "a set of customs arrangements" or implying that the supply chain issues or the speeding up of border inspections, or the increase in trade at all levels are a political conspiracy being sprung secretly on the public by a nefarious political class range between so oversimplistic as to be fictitious, to deliberately untrue and unhelpful.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
In this instance I think Brenda = Her Maj, as opposed to her redoubtable namesake in Bristol.
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
Indeed. Has anyone actually looked up what the biggest defeat every suffered by a government was? This will have to be close if not a record, since in most cases governments will avoid the vote if they will lose massively.
If the meaningful vote is on the deal first it will fail. However, if all the amendments fall first meaning a second referendum, delay of A50, attempt to stop no deal are ruled out the actual vote on the deal may be difficult to predict
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Doesn't Brenda's prerogative now have a formal role in our unwritten constitution?
The Barnett review in 2009 recommended putting all prerogative powers on a firm statutory and constitutional footing. That has since not really happened, this being Westminster, a lot of royal prerogatives are still exercised in accordance with convention rather than statute.
The remaining prerogative powers are: - Granting of pardons and the discontinuation of criminal charges - The prorogation of parliaments - Appointment of the prime minister - Granting royal assent - Recognizing international states - Declaring war and peace - Ratifying treaties - Granting honours
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
Then what does that look like? And if it does look like the UK somehow becoming a cross between Gin lane, Cherobyl, and downtown Somalia overnight, who is really going to be blamed, the people that wanted to leave the EU, or the people who've been running the country so disastrously that leaving a set of customs arrangements (with 3 years' notice) makes that happen?
The Single Market ain't just "a set of customs arrangement". Nowhere near. It's leaving the Single Market (enhanced, it must be said, by leaving the Customs Union, but the primary effect is the Single Market) that causes the issues. Being in a Single Market with the rest of the EU+EFTA has provided huge benefits in terms of facilitating pretty much everything to do with trade, both business-to-consumer, but business-to-business (and even internally within businesses). It means we don't stop things for inspections as they cross borders. We don't have to negotiate a thicket of interleaving and often mutually inconsistent standards and authorisations. We don't have to worry about who underwrote what and whether we have a mutual recognition treaty with them.
These things form the boundary of national markets. The Single Market is (I believe uniquely) an attempt to extend everyone's national markets to continental reach.
Just as things become more practical, easy to specialise, and scale-economies achieved when expanding a market from a village to a town, from a town to a county, and from a county to a country, the effect is enhanced yet further when expanding from a country to a continent. Making everyone involved more prosperous.
We explicitly intended to move in at least something like this direction when joining the Common Market in the Seventies, enhanced further by the changes of the Eighties. And we, understandably, became more and more reliant on it.
If there is "guilt", we're all "guilty". We all looked to get more value for our money, and more prosperity for any given wealth. Companies that took advantage of the Single Market were rewarded with our custom; companies that didn't, lost out.
Now we have intertwined economic activities across the board - because that's what's provided more for less, again and again.
Calling it "a set of customs arrangements" or implying that the supply chain issues or the speeding up of border inspections, or the increase in trade at all levels are a political conspiracy being sprung secretly on the public by a nefarious political class range between so oversimplistic as to be fictitious, to deliberately untrue and unhelpful.
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
Indeed. Has anyone actually looked up what the biggest defeat every suffered by a government was? This will have to be close if not a record, since in most cases governments will avoid the vote if they will lose massively.
I did wonder about the defeat of Gladstone/Russell's reform act by the Adullamites in 1866, but I can't find the figures for it.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
In this instance I think Brenda = Her Maj, as opposed to her redoubtable namesake in Bristol.
Is this a generational thing? Or a carry on joke or something? Only ever hear Her Maj called Brenda on here....
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
In this instance I think Brenda = Her Maj, as opposed to her redoubtable namesake in Bristol.
Is this a generational thing? Or a carry on joke or something? Only ever hear Her Maj called Brenda on here....
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
In this instance I think Brenda = Her Maj, as opposed to her redoubtable namesake in Bristol.
Is this a generational thing? Or a carry on joke or something? Only ever hear Her Maj called Brenda on here....
It's a Private Eye in-joke, because she looks like a Brenda.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
It shouldn't be a 3-way referendum. That is asking for trouble, confusion, and complaints of non-legitimacy. But the second of these is preferable to the first. In the first, consider that I am pro-Remain but I fear that if it gets to Q2 Leave will win. How should I vote on Q1?
Best is to have just a single question: Leave or Remain. If WTO is the best kind of Leave that Parliament can come up with, fine. I don't want to wipe MPs' bottoms for them. Do it once and they'll want it all the time.
Let's face it - you just want a re-run of the original referendum you lost. So many people tying themsleves in knots to justify their Wah-Wah-Wah We MUST have a re-run position......
I get the argument that a repeat referendum before the result of the previous one has been implemented is not a good thing, but this is an awful mess and the route out isn't going to be full of good things only. The main alternative would be WTO. A revised deal I think is extremely unlikely.
Mr. NorthWales, we'll see how the Speaker determines proceedings. Bully for who, is the question.
Apparently he will chose, as is practice, the amendments which will be then voted on individually before the meaningful vote happens
That will be the real unfolding drama that may well shake many opinions on here and shape the way forward over the following days.
Indeed. An amended motion might render the meaningful vote entirely meaningless. Consider a motion that invited Parliament to accept the deal subject to renegotiating the deal with a referendum if we can't...
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
The thing is it is there on the table ready to move on - labour demanding a GE may not play out well for them. Brenda and the rest of the Country do not want one and it will not cure anything, just make no deal more likely
Brenda has no say in when there's a GE. The FTPA took it away from her. Section 3(2): "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved."
Brenda most certainly can say she does not want an election, indeed most of the country does not want an election
In this instance I think Brenda = Her Maj, as opposed to her redoubtable namesake in Bristol.
Is this a generational thing? Or a carry on joke or something? Only ever hear Her Maj called Brenda on here....
Mr. NorthWales, we'll see how the Speaker determines proceedings. Bully for who, is the question.
Apparently he will chose, as is practice, the amendments which will be then voted on individually before the meaningful vote happens
That will be the real unfolding drama that may well shake many opinions on here and shape the way forward over the following days.
Indeed. An amended motion might render the meaningful vote entirely meaningless. Consider a motion that invited Parliament to accept the deal subject to renegotiating the deal with a referendum if we can't...
Indeed and that is one of many scenarios. There are many on here who think it is a simple vote over the deal. It is not by any means and anything could happen
Mr. NorthWales, we'll see how the Speaker determines proceedings. Bully for who, is the question.
Apparently he will chose, as is practice, the amendments which will be then voted on individually before the meaningful vote happens
That will be the real unfolding drama that may well shake many opinions on here and shape the way forward over the following days.
Indeed. An amended motion might render the meaningful vote entirely meaningless. Consider a motion that invited Parliament to accept the deal subject to renegotiating the deal with a referendum if we can't...
Indeed and that is one of many scenarios. There are many on here who think it is a simple vote over the deal. It is not by any means and anything could happen
Anything can happen within the bounds of there being a large, and apparently very determined, bloc intending to stop May's deal at any costs.
As satisfying as humiliating May will no doubt be for all sides, it's not of itself going to allow Parliament to come to a settled view on a way forward.
The Single Market ain't just "a set of customs arrangement". Nowhere near. It's leaving the Single Market (enhanced, it must be said, by leaving the Customs Union, but the primary effect is the Single Market) that causes the issues. Being in a Single Market with the rest of the EU+EFTA has provided huge benefits in terms of facilitating pretty much everything to do with trade, both business-to-consumer, but business-to-business (and even internally within businesses). It means we don't stop things for inspections as they cross borders. We don't have to negotiate a thicket of interleaving and often mutually inconsistent standards and authorisations. We don't have to worry about who underwrote what and whether we have a mutual recognition treaty with them.
These things form the boundary of national markets. The Single Market is (I believe uniquely) an attempt to extend everyone's national markets to continental reach.
Just as things become more practical, easy to specialise, and scale-economies achieved when expanding a market from a village to a town, from a town to a county, and from a county to a country, the effect is enhanced yet further when expanding from a country to a continent. Making everyone involved more prosperous.
We explicitly intended to move in at least something like this direction when joining the Common Market in the Seventies, enhanced further by the changes of the Eighties. And we, understandably, became more and more reliant on it.
If there is "guilt", we're all "guilty". We all looked to get more value for our money, and more prosperity for any given wealth. Companies that took advantage of the Single Market were rewarded with our custom; companies that didn't, lost out.
Now we have intertwined economic activities across the board - because that's what's provided more for less, again and again.
Calling it "a set of customs arrangements" or implying that the supply chain issues or the speeding up of border inspections, or the increase in trade at all levels are a political conspiracy being sprung secretly on the public by a nefarious political class range between so oversimplistic as to be fictitious, to deliberately untrue and unhelpful.
Very well put. And in fact the reality is that any disruption or lack of disruption in the weeks and months before and after leaving is insignificant in the overall story. My personal hunch is that the disruption will actually be fairly minimal, but I haven't given it much thought. The prospect of spending years, possibly even decades, in a worse trading position than we have enjoyed is the thing that will make all the difference. Relative economic decline compared to our peer group countries just over the channel is going to feel and be very bad.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
Although no longer a Labour MP, Frank Field was dining in Dartmouth yesterday lunchtime. I thought it best to leave him to dine in peace (he looks very frail) - but I was curious to know what he thought of May's deal....
Very well put. And in fact the reality is that any disruption or lack of disruption in the weeks and months before and after leaving is insignificant in the overall story. My personal hunch is that the disruption will actually be fairly minimal, but I haven't given it much thought. The prospect of spending years, possibly even decades, in a worse trading position than we have enjoyed is the thing that will make all the difference. Relative economic decline compared to our peer group countries just over the channel is going to feel and be very bad.
And if that happens, the same people who have continually whinges about the EU will be blaming *them*, not *us*. They're not playing fair. They're making things hard for us. It's their fault.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
I hope you are correct. However I am not betting on that outcome. As when I have watched parliament, hardly any MP from either side of the house,has a good thing to say about Mays deal. In esscence I would rather she got beat by a hundred than ten. So a decision can then be made on the way forward.
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
I hope you are correct. However I am not betting on that outcome. As when I have watched parliament, hardly any MP from either side of the house,has a good thing to say about Mays deal. In esscence I would rather she got beat by a hundred than ten. So a decision can then be made on the way forward.
This idea that there's a large bank of hidden Labour MPs biding their time so they can rush to the aid of an imperiled Tory PM to save a deal they hate seems like... I guess wishful thinking wouldn't nearly cover it. Delusional idiocy?
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
The second one makes no sense given the justification everyone's been advancing of having more information, because the question order is backwards: "What is brexit?" obviously precedes "Do you want to brexit or not". You can't decide whether to brexit until you know what brexit is.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?" Keep it simple and just do "deal or not" followed by "brexit or not" and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means 2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
There won’t be a vote. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal.
That is my view. And as we speak, in the teeth of a growing body of evidence to the contrary, my belief is that they will.
How much money are you betting on your belief ?
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I have a tenner with the White Rabbit that Labour will be whipped to vote against the deal.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
If you lose , how many Labour Mps do you think will vote with the government ?
Good question. I don't think many of them are enamoured of the possibility of an election, and I hope most of them are sane enough to see the risk of no deal.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
I hope you are correct. However I am not betting on that outcome. As when I have watched parliament, hardly any MP from either side of the house,has a good thing to say about Mays deal. In esscence I would rather she got beat by a hundred than ten. So a decision can then be made on the way forward.
This idea that there's a large bank of hidden Labour MPs biding their time so they can rush to the aid of an imperiled Tory PM to save a deal they hate seems like... I guess wishful thinking wouldn't nearly cover it. Delusional idiocy?
You would know more about delusional idiocy than me, Grabcocque.
But I do think without a whipping operation the possibility of significant numbers of Labour abstentions would be a real one.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
The second one makes no sense given the justification everyone's been advancing of having more information, because the question order is backwards: "What is brexit?" obviously precedes "Do you want to brexit or not". You can't decide whether to brexit until you know what brexit is.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?"Keep it simple and delete those two words and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means 2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
No. We've already answered the 'leave/remain' question and Parliament has upheld that decision by invoking Article 50. Any second referendum should simply be 'deal/no deal'.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
They already did that in 2016.
This is true. It doesn't mean that, given another choice, people might not want no deal, but it was a risk and parliament triggered A50 knowing it was a risk. All those Tory and Labour MPs crying crocodile tears over not allowing no deal made it the default option already.
Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.
Let’s not have any more drivel please.
The only drivel is emanating from you , you half witted cretinous crackpot.
Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.
Let’s not have any more drivel please.
The only drivel is emanating from you , you half witted cretinous crackpot.
Evening Malcolm.
To answer a further question upthread, how fast can you get those turnips firing?
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
The second one makes no sense given the justification everyone's been advancing of having more information, because the question order is backwards: "What is brexit?" obviously precedes "Do you want to brexit or not". You can't decide whether to brexit until you know what brexit is.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?"Keep it simple and delete those two words and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means 2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
No. We've already answered the 'leave/remain' question and Parliament has upheld that decision by invoking Article 50. Any second referendum should simply be 'deal/no deal'.
Given almost all backers of a referendum are remain supporters, and opposed to no deal in all circumstances, we are hardly going to end up with a referendum on deal or no deal. The referendum supporters might as well back the deal in Parliament if that is the outcome. Regardless of what you think any referendum should be about
Unlike the supine UK the French are still able to walk upright and do not act like sheeple when their politicians stiff them. If only they could sell the UK some backbones.
Unlike the supine UK the French are still able to walk upright and do not act like sheeple when their politicians stiff them. If only they could sell the UK some backbones.
Everyone gets my puns on doors, but not my awesome puns about the French being always at it! Very annoying.
They missed my puns about the bangs on Nelson's Column as well.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
The second one makes no sense given the justification everyone's been advancing of having more information, because the question order is backwards: "What is brexit?" obviously precedes "Do you want to brexit or not". You can't decide whether to brexit until you know what brexit is.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?"Keep it simple and delete those two words and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means 2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
No. We've already answered the 'leave/remain' question and Parliament has upheld that decision by invoking Article 50. Any second referendum should simply be 'deal/no deal'.
Given almost all backers of a referendum are remain supporters, and opposed to no deal in all circumstances, we are hardly going to end up with a referendum on deal or no deal. The referendum supporters might as well back the deal in Parliament if that is the outcome. Regardless of what you think any referendum should be about
The supporters of a second referendum could close down the risk of No Deal - if they supported May's deal. That they don't and insist on pursuing a remain agenda shows the hollowness of their concern expressed at wailing at the risk to the country of such a No Deal.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
But 'Not This Deal' winning does not resolve the impasse.
Also 'The Deal' is just the Withdrawal Agreement. It does not define the all important future relationship.
Which brings me back to my recurring point. No Deal is not suitable for a public vote and neither is The Deal.
So no 2nd referendum. It's superficially attractive but collapses on scrutiny.
Only way to have another EU referendum before we leave that is both defensible and practical is to enter the Tardis, jump back to 2016, and get it done before Cameron bags the slot for his.
There won’t be a vote.
The default is no deal. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal, or some side deals, if they want to avoid that.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
The second one makes no sense given the justification everyone's been advancing of having more information, because the question order is backwards: "What is brexit?" obviously precedes "Do you want to brexit or not". You can't decide whether to brexit until you know what brexit is.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?"Keep it simple and delete those two words and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means 2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
No. We've already answered the 'leave/remain' question and Parliament has upheld that decision by invoking Article 50. Any second referendum should simply be 'deal/no deal'.
Given almost all backers of a referendum are remain supporters, and opposed to no deal in all circumstances, we are hardly going to end up with a referendum on deal or no deal. The referendum supporters might as well back the deal in Parliament if that is the outcome. Regardless of what you think any referendum should be about
The supporters of a second referendum could close down the risk of No Deal - if they supported May's deal. That they don't and insist on pursuing a remain agenda shows the hollowness of their concern expressed at wailing at the risk to the country of such a No Deal.
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
Mr. kinabalu, that was my thinking (backed the 11 December vote passing at 6.5) but since then, although the odds have shortened to 5, there seems to have been more steam building behind opposition to the deal than in support of it.
It does seem that the 11 Dec vote is a done deal - or a NOT done deal I suppose we should say.
But I reckon that the deal (i.e the WA) gets through eventually in Q1 next year. No doubt after an almighty bout of big talk and small changes.
Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.
Let’s not have any more drivel please.
The only drivel is emanating from you , you half witted cretinous crackpot.
Evening Malcolm.
To answer a further question upthread, how fast can you get those turnips firing?
evening ydoethur , the idiot meter on the site is rising alarmingly fast with all this madness. I can have a trailer load with you by tomorrow latest.
Unlike the supine UK the French are still able to walk upright and do not act like sheeple when their politicians stiff them. If only they could sell the UK some backbones.
Everyone gets my puns on doors, but not my awesome puns about the French being always at it! Very annoying.
They missed my puns about the bangs on Nelson's Column as well.
Negotiations require two parties. The SNP can do what they like; nobody from Westminster is obliged to meet them for so-called ‘negotiations’. The Union is reserved to Westminster, so any unilateral actions the Scottish government took to break it would be illegal and unenforceable. It would also not be seen as legitimate by a majority of the Scottish population.
Let’s not have any more drivel please.
The only drivel is emanating from you , you half witted cretinous crackpot.
Evening Malcolm.
To answer a further question upthread, how fast can you get those turnips firing?
evening ydoethur , the idiot meter on the site is rising alarmingly fast with all this madness. I can have a trailer load with you by tomorrow latest.
Rather than a trailer load, could I have a punnet please?
For the deal to get through, a lot of supposed "options" need to be shown to be off the table. One would have to think that there is a better chance of remain supporters coming to back it to avoid no deal, that ERG types backing it out of fear that we remain. Because i'm not convinced that all of them, and certainly the likes of Boris will actually be that concerned by remaining, and the "betrayal" narrative that they will be able to thrive upon as a result.
For the deal to get through, a lot of supposed "options" need to be shown to be off the table. One would have to think that there is a better chance of remain supporters coming to back it to avoid no deal, that ERG types backing it out of fear that we remain. Because i'm not convinced that all of them, and certainly the likes of Boris will actually be that concerned by remaining, and the "betrayal" narrative that they will be able to thrive upon as a result.
The Remainer fear of no deal is their big problem in pursuing their current strategy. That is the clear reason why they are trying to engineer amendments that try to take this outcome off the table.
Comments
(A) facilitates the establishment of (b) provided that enough of your fellow citizens agree with you
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2018/12/deal-or-no-deal.html
The conclusion is:
There was nothing inevitable about our current predicament and you wouldn't start from here, but now that we're here it would be irresponsible to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The European Commission and the British establishment have won. The Brexiteers have been outmaneuvered. We have lost and it is not worth wrecking the economy and opening the door to socialism to make a point. The only realistic choice now is between remaining in the EU and accepting May's deal. No deal is a no go.
What is there to agree with or disagree with? In his worst case scenario, we don't run out of food, or anything like it. Beyond that he's speaking of longer term economic consequences that can be dealt with on a longer term basis.
If I lose that bet I will consider it the best ten pounds I have ever spent.
Best is to have just a single question: Leave or Remain. If WTO is the best kind of Leave that Parliament can come up with, fine. I don't want to wipe MPs' bottoms for them. Do it once and they'll want it all the time.
It's leaving the Single Market (enhanced, it must be said, by leaving the Customs Union, but the primary effect is the Single Market) that causes the issues.
Being in a Single Market with the rest of the EU+EFTA has provided huge benefits in terms of facilitating pretty much everything to do with trade, both business-to-consumer, but business-to-business (and even internally within businesses). It means we don't stop things for inspections as they cross borders. We don't have to negotiate a thicket of interleaving and often mutually inconsistent standards and authorisations. We don't have to worry about who underwrote what and whether we have a mutual recognition treaty with them.
These things form the boundary of national markets. The Single Market is (I believe uniquely) an attempt to extend everyone's national markets to continental reach.
Just as things become more practical, easy to specialise, and scale-economies achieved when expanding a market from a village to a town, from a town to a county, and from a county to a country, the effect is enhanced yet further when expanding from a country to a continent. Making everyone involved more prosperous.
We explicitly intended to move in at least something like this direction when joining the Common Market in the Seventies, enhanced further by the changes of the Eighties. And we, understandably, became more and more reliant on it.
If there is "guilt", we're all "guilty". We all looked to get more value for our money, and more prosperity for any given wealth. Companies that took advantage of the Single Market were rewarded with our custom; companies that didn't, lost out.
Now we have intertwined economic activities across the board - because that's what's provided more for less, again and again.
Calling it "a set of customs arrangements" or implying that the supply chain issues or the speeding up of border inspections, or the increase in trade at all levels are a political conspiracy being sprung secretly on the public by a nefarious political class range between so oversimplistic as to be fictitious, to deliberately untrue and unhelpful.
But ultimately I think more would abstain than support the government. I could easily see 50 doing that, and I think that would be enough to push this through.
The remaining prerogative powers are:
- Granting of pardons and the discontinuation of criminal charges
- The prorogation of parliaments
- Appointment of the prime minister
- Granting royal assent
- Recognizing international states
- Declaring war and peace
- Ratifying treaties
- Granting honours
Possibly more like 3
That will be the real unfolding drama that may well shake many opinions on here and shape the way forward over the following days.
Now Parliament is going to deliver that no-deal Brexit.
What a splendid example of democracy in action.
One man, une vitre?
As satisfying as humiliating May will no doubt be for all sides, it's not of itself going to allow Parliament to come to a settled view on a way forward.
However I am not betting on that outcome.
As when I have watched parliament, hardly any MP from either side of the house,has a good thing to say about Mays deal.
In esscence I would rather she got beat by a hundred than ten.
So a decision can then be made on the way forward.
In the first one you're asking for some weird tactical behaviour with your "if no" clevers. Basically you're saying to remainers, "are you prepared to risk no deal to get a shot at remain?" Keep it simple and just do "deal or not" followed by "brexit or not" and it all works, with the caveats that:
1) What "no deal" means could be a can of worms on a par with what "brexit" means
2) There would be an almightly bunfight about whether you do funding limits as if it's one campaign for the whole thing or one campaign per round
But I do think without a whipping operation the possibility of significant numbers of Labour abstentions would be a real one.
To answer a further question upthread, how fast can you get those turnips firing?
They missed my puns about the bangs on Nelson's Column as well.
LOL - I know the trots need chaos but ffs.
(i) No 2nd referendum.
(ii) We leave the EU on 29 March 2019.
Getting nervous now but not in a bad way.
https://twitter.com/Ladbrokes/status/1069292974889213952
Edit - now it seems to have been deleted.
Edit 2 - and just as I say that it appears again!
But I reckon that the deal (i.e the WA) gets through eventually in Q1 next year. No doubt after an almighty bout of big talk and small changes.
Jordan Pickford claims he will not take risks with the ball like Alisson did
Pickford says more mistakes are likely to happen throughout season
But Pickford doesn't intend to make one as he won't let himself get comfortable
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6140863/I-wont-blunder-like-Alisson-Pickford-vows-not-risks-like-Liverpool-goalkeeper.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top